THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
has been severely criticized (cf. F. C. Conybeare in ZNTW, v., 1904, pp. 39-52; T. Zahn, NKZ, xv., 1904, pp. 305-330, 375-390; J. A. Robinson, in JTS, vi., 1905, pp. 87-90), and neglects late investigations, such as Robinson's convincing argument that the oldest materials must have existed before 396 and Von Dobschiitz's induction from the Syriac versions that the work in its fuller form lay before Philoxenus of Mabug when he translated the New Testament into Syriac in 508. Either there must have been another Euthalius older than the bishop of Sulci (to whom perhaps the title " bishop of Sulci " was given by confusion with the latter), or the seventh century Euthalius used the work of an unknown earlier writer, adding perhaps some new matter of his own.
Only a full examination of all New Testament manuscripts and the versions can throw new light on the question. A new edition of the Euthalian apparatus is needed, as Zaccagni's first edition was based on only a few manuscripts. A greater difficulty is that of reconstructing the true text used and approved by Euthalius. What is called the Euthalius Codex in Tischendorf is but a single manuscript of comparatively recent date.
E. VON DoBSCHUTZ. Bibliography: The material's collected in L. A. Zaccagni, Collectanea monumentorum veterum ecclesiae, i. 401—708, liv.-xcvi., Rome, 1698, and thence reprinted with many faults and without the prolegomena in MPG, lxxxv. 619-790. Consult DB, Supplement vol., pp. 524-529 (essential); Islinger, Die Verdienste des Euthalius um den neutestamentlichen Bibeltext, Hof, 1867; W Bousset, in TV, xi. 4, 1894; F. C. Conybeare, On the Codex Pamphili and the Date of Euthalius, in the Journal of Philology, xxiii (1895), 241 sqq.; J. A. Robinson, Euthaliana, in TS, iii. 3, Cambridge, 1895; T. Zahn, in TLB, 1895, pp. 593 sqq., 601 sqq.; E. von Dobschtitz, Euthaliusstudien, in ZKG, xix (1898), 107-154; H. von Soden, Die Schriften des N. T., i. 637 sqq., Berlin, 1902.
EUTHYMIUS, yu-thi'mi-Tjs, ZIGABENUS (ZIGA- DENUS, ZYGADENUS): Byzantine theologian; d. near Constantinople after 1118. Of his life few details are known, except that he was a monk at a cloister in the vicinity of Constantinople. A Latin translation of his commentary on the Psalms was published by Philippus Saulus (Verona, 1530); the Greek original was edited by A. Bongiovanni in the fourth volume of the works of Theophylact (Venice, 1754-63). The commentary on the Gospels appeared in a Latin translation by Johannes Hintenius (Louvain, 1544), the Greek text remained unpublished until C. F. Mattai's edition (Leipsic, 1792); the commentary on the Pauline Epistles was first edited by N. Kalogeras at Athens in 1887 Other exegetical writings on the Catholic Epistles, letters, an elegy on the death of Eustathius of Thessalonica, and a controversy with a Saracen philosopher exist only in manuscript. In his commentary on the Gospels, which is superior to that on the Psalms, Euthymius follows in general the ancient authorities, especially Chrysostom, although he shows some independence. Allegorical and mystical interpretations are occasionally borrowed. On the whole, he is inferior in exegetical precision to Theophylact.
The dogmatic work of Euthymius was written at the instance of the emperor Alexius and from him
received its name of " Dogmatic Panoply " (ed. P. F. Zinus, Venice, 1555; M. H. Gregoras, Tergovist, 1711). It consists of two sections, or " titles," and of twenty-four others devoted to the refutation of various heresies. The accounts of the Bogomiles, Massilians, Armenians, Paulicians, and Mohammedans are of value, despite falsehoods and perversions. The attack on the Roman Catholic doctrines is concerned chiefly with the procession of the Holy Ghost and the use of unleavened bread. Much of the book is a mere compilation of the Church Fathers down to John of Damascus and is important solely as containing excerpts from such obscure authors as Leontius of Byzantium, Anastasius of Sinai, Theodore the Studite, and Maximus. (Philipp Meyer.)
Bibliography: The life and writings are best discussed by N. Kalogeras in his edition of the Commentaries on the Pauline Letters by Euthymius, 2 vols., Athens, 1887, and in Athenaion, ix (1880), 255-284, x (1881), 331-362. Consult also: W Cave, Script, eccl. hist, literaria, vol. ii., Oxford, 1743; C. Ullmann, in TSK, vi (1833), 663- 674; Krumbacher, Geschichte, pp. 82-85 (life and list of works and editions), et passim.
EUTYCHIANISM, yu-tik'i-on-izm.
Compromise Between Alexandria and
Antioch in 433 (§ 1). The Beginning of Strife (§ 2). The " Robber Synod " of Ephesus, 449 (§ 3). The Council of Chalcedon, 451 (§ 4).
Eutychianism was a Christological heresy of the fifth century, taking its name from Eutyches, an ascetic, of strict monastic training, for thirty years superior of a monastery near Constantinople. The history of the struggle of the orthodox party with Eutyches up to the Council of Chalcedon is an unhappy chapter in church history, not alone because court cabals had a considerable share in it, but because it was less a struggle for purity of doctrine than for ecclesiastical power, turning to a large extent on questions of decisive importance in the development of the Alexandrian and Roman patriarchates and in the position of monasticism and of learning in the Church. As a chapter in the history of ideas, it offers one of the most confused and unedifying pictures in the whole of dogmatic development. This is not to adopt Harnack's view that the Monophysitism of Cyril was the legitimate outcome of Greek Christological development, or to pass judgment upon the ultimate solution adopted by the council, which, under the influence of the West, was the most rational then possible; it is simply an expression of distaste for the theological ignorance, thoughtlessness, and lack of conscience of which the history of the controversy is full.
The story begins in 433 with the union enforced by court influence between the parties of Alexandria and Antioch (see Nestorius, § 6) which had only concealed the opposition between their Christological teachings. It was, however, not without its effects. It was fatal to those who had refused to condemn Nestorius (q.v.), and compelled the submission of such men as Theodoret and Andrew of Samosata. It forced Cyril to take his stand in defense of formulas which had been worked out by the school of Antioch and could not be so